Well. I read the spec last night and there is quite a bit to hold on to. The deployer is responsible for things such as configuration, distribution and start/stopping deployable objects. Redeploying is optional. The tool provider is responsible for implementing javax.enterprise.deploy.model (Some of these implementation are introspected from our configuration file.) This is why I was thinking that they would have some type of association. The verifier and deployer might want to share some objects.
--- Jonathan Duty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 I agree. > > Jonathan Duty > Software Developer - eWashtenaw > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Srihari S > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:49 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier > > i still feel they can be friends...the deploy tool > will do the > verification > as a part of the deployment process > then it can use the apis that we develop. > Chris, u seem to have done some homework on the > deployment apis..can u > throw > some light on what it says w.r.t the > verification process > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Opacki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:53 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier > > > My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and the > verifier would be close friends. > ;) > > --- Srihari S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > True > > Our module is just going to check and declare > > whether or not a given unit of > > deployment > > is deployable on a j2ee server or not. > > > > Nothing more..nothing less. > > Building this unit will be our mission..right > > weston?? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier > > > > > > And even further, let's clarify the verification > is > > a completely different > > animal than actual deployment. Am I correct on > this > > one at least in terms of > > the way we are thinking about this module? > > > > Weston > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 01:50 pm, Srihari S > wrote: > > > just a clarification..i hope ur referring to > j2ee > > 1.4 spec > > > lets have a common understanding on this...u cud > > specify the correct > > > version > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Chris Opacki > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:02 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier > > > > > > > > > The specs also provides a basic SPI API. It also > > > provides a high level architecture describe the > > > relations between deployable components and > > objects in > > > the deploymeny tool and manager. It's an > > interesting > > > read. > > > > > > --- Srihari S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > never mind ur choice of words....if we end up > > using > > > > the rule engine concept > > > > it will because of u:) > > > > So at a very hi level we can look at the > > verifier as > > > > > > > > Input Process Output > > > > > > > > JAR Verify the correctness OK/NOK with > error > > log > > > > WAR by parsing the DD > > > > EAR and applying correctness > > > > RAR rules > > > > > > > > > > > > While it is true that the verifier can be a > > > > standalone app and we must > > > > design its internals in this spirit > > > > it may also be worthwhile to decide early on > how > > it > > > > will get into the > > > > geronimo frwk > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Weston M. Price > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:04 PM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier > > > > > > > > > > > > As a modular component I think this J2EE > > verifier > > > > engine/processor would be > > > > very useful in a number of projects; it could > > even > > > > be a standalone module > > > > that would allow a developer to validate their > > > > archive before ever even > > > > trying to deploy it in a target environment. > Of > > > > course, you wouldn't be able > > > > to see those 100+ line stack traces roll > across > > your > > > > tty when you go to > > > > deploy your archive; that would be the one > > > > drawback.... > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Weston > > > > > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M. > > Price > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Yeah, I knew that term was going to come > back > > at > > > > > > > > me, poor choice of words > > > > > > > > > on my part. I was basically thinking in > terms > > of > > > > > > > > "rules" as conditions > > > > that > > > > > > > > > need to be satisfied to fulfill a > deployment; > > not > > > > > > > > in terms of a full blown > > > > > > > > > rules engine (though this would be somewhat > > > > > > > > interesting). At the very core > > > > > > > > > what you really have is a set of conditions > > that > > > > > > > > when applied to a > > > > > > > > > deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be > > met > > > > > > > > for the archive to be > > > > > > > > > deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a > > watchdog > > > > > > > > that prevents archives > > > > > > > > > from violating a discreet set of > constraints. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Weston > > > > > > > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > i did not have this rule engine picture > when > === message truncated === __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
